SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS and
DISTRICT ENGINEER CELESTINO R.
CONTRERAS, Petitioners,
vs.
SPOUSES HERACLEO and RAMONA
TECSON, Respondents.
G.R. No. 179334 April 21, 2015
Facts:
1. In 1940, the Department of Public Works
and Highways (DPWH) took
respondents-movants' subject property
without the benefit of expropriation
proceedings for the construction of the
MacArthur Highway.
2. Respondents-movants SPOUSES
HERACLEO and RAMONA TECSON,
demanded the payment of the fair
market value of the subject parcel of
land.
3. Celestino R. Contreras Petitioners,
(Contreras), then District Engineer of the
First Bulacan Engineering District of the
DPWH, offered to pay for the subject
land at the rate of Seventy Centavos
(P0.70) per square meter, per
Resolution of the Provincial Appraisal
Committee (PAC) of Bulacan.
4. Respondent SPOUSES HERACLEO
and RAMONA TECSON, made
disagreement on the valuation.
5. Then after, respondent were able to
obtain favorable decisions in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Court of
Appeal (CA).
6. Petitioners ENGINEER CELESTINO R.
CONTRERAS thus elevated the matter
before the Supreme Court in a petition
for review on certiorari.
Issue:
7. Whether or not the interpretation of the
word “just compensation” is based on
the time of taking of the property of the
respondent.
8. Ruling:
9. Constitutionally, "just compensation"
is the sum equivalent to the market
value of the property, broadly
described as the price fixed by the
seller in open market in the usual and
ordinary course of legal action and
competition, or the fair value of the
property as between the one who
receives and the one who desires to
sell, it being fixed at the time of the
actual taking by the government. Just
compensation is defined as the full and
fair equivalent of the property taken from
its owner by the expropriator. It has
been repeatedly stressed by this Court
that the true measure is not the taker's
gain but the owner's loss. The word
"just" is used to modify the meaning of
the word "compensation" to convey the
idea that the equivalent to be given for
the property to be taken shall be real,
substantial, full and ample.
10. The Court held that no process of
interpretation or construction need
be resorted to where a provision of
law peremptorily calls for application.
Equity and equitable principles only
come into full play when a gap exists
in the law and jurisprudence. In this
case it is established by rulings the full
application of the law to the case at bar,
hence, should be upheld.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby
DENIED for lack of merit.